Jump to content

prolixindec

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

547 profile views
  1. I suggested that you look at your assistance settings; see above. Glad you found the problem.
  2. I’m still wondering if the sim is getting a command from somewhere to restore the trim to zero. If it’s not coming from an unexpected button or key binding, then maybe there is some kind of “assist” in action? Maybe a virtual co-pilot, or an external configuration app, or an assistance setting within MSFS? Have you tried removing or disabling all other add-ons except the ATR?
  3. I don’t know for sure. Some aircraft have a command that’s called something like “neutralize trim” or “center trim” or it could even be “reduce trim.” You might check all your assignments and verify that nothing like this has been unknowingly assigned to some key or button that you’re not expecting. You might even have it assigned in two places, one that you know about, and another that you’re unaware of. So I’d just read through all of your assignments, and look for something like this.
  4. I don’t have the ATR but issues like this can sometimes be related to conflicting control assignments. Do you have a keyboard command, or a button, or some other input device mapped to something that neutralizes trim?
  5. I use a minimalist setup as well. I don’t have any 3rd party scenery. I do use AIG aircraft to populate the skies, and I use auto-FPS to optimize performance, but that’s about it in terms of MSFS mods for me. MSFS is my scenery generator for PSX, so I don’t have any 3rd party aircraft or liveries for MSFS. And PSX only simulates the 744, so I only fly one aircraft type.
  6. I can't do all the troubleshooting for you but this is one piece of information that helped me. You can reconfigure windows to accept long paths, but that apparently just extends the length of file names. It doesn't allow you to use long paths with the File Explorer software built in to Windows that actually moves files from one location to another. To actually move long files, you need another utility, one that isn't limited like this. One utility is 7-Zip, which is free. To sum it up, you can follow online directions to make Windows accept long paths, but then if you want to move a file with a long path to somewhere else, you can't use the built in File Explorer, you have to use a utility like 7-Zip.
  7. People don’t realize it, but flight simming is like model railroad building. The model railroaders don’t ever just sit and play with their trains; they’re always tinkering. Building a new bridge, making a new mountain, assembling a new train, making a new town. The hobby is 5% running trains, and 95% tinkering with things. Flight simming is the same way. People are always adjusting their system, trying out new tweaks, building new hardware, downloading new utilities, buying new aircraft. So you can relax, you’re normal!
  8. I think a steam gauge 727 would be a lot of fun, or an old 747-100 or -200 with their steam gauge, no-magenta-line RNAV. But I wonder about flight engineer implementation. Obviously(?) for maximum fun you'd want to be able to manipulate all the switches at the FE station, but it would be a handful to try to do it all in typical single-pilot flight sim operations. I guess any good developer would also come up with an AI flight engineer. That would make it more fun, but might be too much for a developer who wasn't used to making complicated aircraft. I know PMDG outfitted their DC-6 with an automated flight engineer... I don't have that aircraft so I don't know how successful their implementation was.
  9. Over the last 15 years, we've seen gaming turn into something massive, with game franchises becoming worth over a billion dollars to the developers. Flight sim languished in the background as something underdeveloped, because it was for a smaller niche audience. It looks like Microsoft and Asobo have decided to give MSFS the same treatment as other major gaming titles, which is great. It means the simulator core can finally get some needed attention with regard to performance and user experience. Anyone who has used other games knows that MSFS is like the one title where people can suffer with 20 fps and force themselves to say they're happy. If Microsoft finally treats MSFS as a billion dollar franchise, then they can afford to throw enough resources at it to make the gameplay infinitely better. Of course, every treatment has side effects, but the overall user experience seems to be massively improved, which will attract more customers, which will make ongoing enhancements financially possible. These are exciting times. It could go off the rails in any number of ways, but overall it seems like optimism is justified.
  10. For BIKF, I would know the STAR at the time of departure--it would be included in the initial clearance, so I would put that in the FMS and leave it alone unless updated by ATC enroute. And I would give the FMS the best-guess runway based on the forecast winds, but I would hold off on putting in the actual approach until I was told by ATC or ATIS what to expect. (Putting in the runway is optional, but it gives you situational awareness if your aircraft has a MAP function, which most airliners do, as do most high-tech GA aircraft for that matter). The approaches at Keflavik aren't that different from one another in terms of route flown, but I still wouldn't enter an approach until I heard from ATC, because I wouldn't want the FMS to have inaccurate data that I might forget to update. For simulator ops, you "are" ATC, and you can put in whatever route you want. Or else you are using VATSIM or an ATC app, in which case I hope you would be given the approach with reasonable notice to set everything up.
  11. STARs are often very long, sometimes going on for a hundred miles. You can be well into flying it before ATC tells you anything about the approach. The ATIS will tell you the runway in use, and can mention the specific approaches as well, although in big airports there may be several approaches and runways in use simultaneously so you wouldn’t know what you specifically would be assigned until you talk to ATC as you get close to the airport. Recall that you’re cleared to fly the STAR when you get your initial clearance before departure, so ATC doesn’t need to mention that to you unless things change. Some real-life considerations: If your COM radios fail (which never happens), you’d be responsible for getting yourself from the enroute portion of the flight to the initial approach fix. So there always has to be some way to connect the dots. E.g. you can’t fly IFR into an airport that only has RNAV approaches if you don’t have RNAV capabilities. But in real life, ATC usually gives you vectors to the approach, at least here in the USA. The main reason is that pilots always love shortcuts, and many approaches have lengthy procedure turns or extended downwind or base legs that can be cut out via radar vectors. So in most cases you fly the STAR almost to the end, and then ATC takes over and steers you via shortcuts to the final. I know it looks nice to have that magenta line intact from start to finish, but in reality, you get vectors in most cases. Outside the USA, they don’t always have the same radar capabilities or culture as we do here, and you’re more likely to stay on a published route from start to finish. It’s also worth noting that on smaller or mid-size airports, even on an IFR flight plan, you’ll be given clearance for a visual approach if you can report the airport in sight. This saves an enormous amount of time compared to flying a full IFR approach. The determinant is usually traffic: if you’re the only one coming in, and the weather is good, you’ll routinely get visual clearance. You’ll only fly a published approach if the weather is bad or if they need to keep multiple aircraft apart and it helps with spacing. As for what you put in the FMS, I’m only familiar with the Boeing 747. You can put in whatever makes sense. Typically the STAR gets loaded before departure, but not the approach, because you don’t know it yet. While you’re flying, it’s easy enough to put in a runway and work backwards, or put in a new STAR and work forwards if you have to. You can put in VFR approaches that just give you a final approach course, or any published approach—it just depends on what you need to fly.
  12. Back in previous iterations of Flight Simulator, you would hear the tires "chirp" when the aircraft touched down, which didn't make too much sense in a small aircraft but made absolutely no sense whatsoever in an airliner. But that is what the developers thought the customers wanted to hear. I recall people being upset with realistic sounds in a 747--in the real aircraft you can't hear any external sounds on touchdown at all, just internal clattering and the speed brake lever deploying. The real sounds sounded unnatural to people who grew up on Flight Simulator.
  13. When I was flying in the USA (I have since retired), ATC would never give you the STAR, but they would always give you the approach. That's because the STAR was part of your filed flight plan, and you already received clearance to fly it when you started your trip, just like you already have clearance for the rest of the route. ATC would only issue the STAR if they changed it from the one that you originally filed, to a new one--which was rare. However, they would always give you the approach, because that was dependent on the local weather and more likely subject to change. (Also, you never get approach clearance at the beginning of the flight.) In many non-USA airports, the STAR is more tightly bound to the approach, so they might assign it or update it once they knew which approach was in use. Not sure if this helps...
  14. Version 7.5.0. The behavior is the same as described in the original post above, but I no longer see the "sys error 234" message. PSXTraffic closes, saying it will restart in X seconds (counting down), but it does not restart. And it says "Read error" in red, on the UI. Manually restarting PSXTraffic still works fine. Only teleporting causes the crash; without teleporting, it is steady. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...